The European Court of Human rights (ECHR) ruled Thursday that Italy did not violate the rights of a man with HIV (which had possibly developed into AIDS) by keeping him in a general prison and exposing him to the risk of catching COVID-19.

The applicant was a man born in 1997 who lived in Varese, Italy. He had been convicted of theft, fraud, drug possession, trafficking, unauthorized possession of weapons, forgery, and tax evasion. Due to his HIV and cognitive and mobility impairment, the applicant was originally placed on house arrest and was moved to a reception facility due to a lack of adequate accommodation. However, after he escaped on multiple occasions and accosted a woman and child, he was placed in the Milan San Viltore prison.

After being placed in prison, the applicant filed an urgent request in March 2020 to be put on house arrest instead of being kept in the detention facility due to his health and his fear that he would die if was kept in the prison. This application was rejected by the general court because he had no adequate place to stay. In July 2020, the applicant submitted another application to be transferred due to his health, stating that the prison authorities had found him suitable alternative accommodation. This request was approved.

The applicant appealed to the ECHR that the Italian authorities breached the European Convention on Human Rights in detaining him. He argued that his detention was in breach of article 2 of the convention, the right to life, and article 3 of the convention, the right against degrading treatment.

The ECHR found that there was no breach of the convention rights by the Italian authorities. The court held that there was no proof that he was receiving inadequate medical attention, since “the applicant had been monitored by a virologist, received antiretroviral treatment and had several specialist examinations scheduled.” The court held that the convention did not lay down any general obligation to release sick people from prison, “even if he or she is suffering from a disease which is particularly difficult to treat.” Further, the court held that in this specific case, it was not necessary for the applicant to be released from detention because there was no proof that “applicant’s state of health had deteriorated to such an extent as to necessitate his release.” The court further found that the applicant was not exposed to a significantly higher chance of developing COVID-19 due to his detention.